《GreekTestament Critical Exegetical Commentary-John》(Henry Alford)
Commentator
Henry Alford (7 October 1810 - 12 January 1871) was an English churchman, theologian, textual critic, scholar, poet, hymnodist, and writer.
Alford was born in London, of a Somerset family, which had given five consecutive generations of clergymen to the Anglican church. Alford's early years were passed with his widowed father, who was curate of Steeple Ashton in Wiltshire. He was a precocious boy, and before he was ten had written several Latin odes, a history of the Jews and a series of homiletic outlines. After a peripatetic school course he went up to Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1827 as a scholar. In 1832 he was 34th wrangler and 8th classic, and in 1834 was made fellow of Trinity.
He had already taken orders, and in 1835 began his eighteen-year tenure of the vicarage of Wymeswold in Leicestershire, from which seclusion the twice-repeated offer of a colonial bishopric failed to draw him. He was Hulsean lecturer at Cambridge in 1841-1842, and steadily built up a reputation as scholar and preacher, which might have been greater if not for his excursions into minor poetry and magazine editing.
In 1844, he joined the Cambridge Camden Society (CCS) which published a list of do's and don'ts for church layout which they promoted as a science. He commissioned A.W.N. Pugin to restore St Mary's church. He also was a member of the Metaphysical Society, founded in 1869 by James Knowles.
In September 1853 Alford moved to Quebec Chapel, Marylebone, London, where he had a large congregation. In March 1857 Lord Palmerston advanced him to the deanery of Canterbury, where, till his death, he lived the same energetic and diverse lifestyle as ever. He had been the friend of most of his eminent contemporaries, and was much beloved for his amiable character. The inscription on his tomb, chosen by himself, is Diversorium Viatoris Hierosolymam Proficiscentis ("the inn of a traveler on his way to Jerusalem").
Alford was a talented artist, as his picture-book, The Riviera (1870), shows, and he had abundant musical and mechanical talent. Besides editing the works of John Donne, he published several volumes of his own verse, The School of the Heart (1835), The Abbot of Muchelnaye (1841), The Greek Testament. The Four Gospels (1849), and a number of hymns, the best-known of which are "Forward! be our watchword," "Come, ye thankful people, come", and "Ten thousand times ten thousand." He translated the Odyssey, wrote a well-known manual of idiom, A Plea for the Queen's English (1863), and was the first editor of the Contemporary Review (1866 - 1870).
His chief fame rests on his monumental edition of the New Testament in Greek (4 vols.), which occupied him from 1841 to 1861. In this work he first produced a careful collation of the readings of the chief manuscripts and the researches of the ripest continental scholarship of his day. Philological rather than theological in character, it marked an epochal change from the old homiletic commentary, and though more recent research, patristic and papyral, has largely changed the method of New Testament exegesis, Alford's work is still a quarry where the student can dig with a good deal of profit.
His Life, written by his widow, appeared in 1873 (Rivington).
Introduction
CHAPTER V
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
SECTION I
ITS AUTHORSHIP
1. THE universal belief of the Christian Church has ascribed this Gospel to the Apostle John. I shall not here anticipate the discussion respecting its genuineness (see below, § vi.), but assume that it has been rightly so ascribed.
2. John was son of Zebedee and Salome, and younger (?)(1) brother of James. His father was a Galilæan, and by occupation a fisherman on the lake of Galilee. Where he resided, is uncertain—perhaps at Bethsaida: but the circumstance of Simon Peter, who was of that place, being (Luke 5:10) partner in the fishing trade, or perhaps, in that particular expedition only with the sons of Zebedee, is no proof as to their residence there also.
3. The family of John seems not to have been one of the lowest class: we find hired servants in the ship with Zebedee, Mark 1:20; their mother Salome was one of those women who came with Jesus from Galilee, and ministered to Him of their substance, Luke 8:3; Luke 23:55, compared with Mark 16:1; the same Salome was one of those who bought sweet spices and ointments to anoint Him (Mark, ibid.); and, John 19:27, we find John himself taking the mother of our Lord εἰς τὰ ἴδια, which though (see note there) it need not imply that John had then a house at Jerusalem, certainly denotes that he had some fixed habitation, into which she was received. If, as is most likely, John be meant by the ἄλλος μαθητής of ch. John 18:15, he was personally known to the High Priest Caiaphas. From all these facts the inference is that his family belonged to the middle class of society; the higher grade of those who carried on the by no means despised or ungainful business of fishermen on the sea of Galilee.
4. If (see note on John 1:41) the second of the two disciples who heard the Baptist’s testimony to Jesus, and followed Him in consequence, was John himself,—we have his acquaintance with our Lord dating from the very beginning of His ministry. And to this agree the contents of chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, containing particulars of the Ministry at Jerusalem and in Galilee which happened previous to the commencement of the official record of the other Evangelists. It seems that John accompanied our Lord to Jerusalem,—with perhaps those of the Apostles already called,—and witnessed those incidents which he has related in that part of his Gospel.
5. In the intervals of our Lord’s first circuits and journeys, the Apostles seem to have returned to their families and occupations. Thus in Luke 5:1-11, we find the sons of Zebedee, as well as Simon Peter, again engaged in fishing, and solemnly and finally summoned by Jesus to follow Him;—an incident which, as Lücke acknowledges (Comm. in Joh., Einleitung, p. 12), would be inexplicable even by the miracle, unless there had been a previous acquaintance on their part with our Lord.
6. From that time John belonged to that chosen number known as ‘the Twelve,’ who were nearest to the Person of Jesus during His ministry. And of that number, he seems to have been the most personally beloved by our Lord. For the assumption that he is the author of our Gospel, also identifies him with ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ so often mentioned in it (see ch. John 13:23; John 19:26; John 20:2; John 21:7; John 21:20; John 21:24). He, together with his brother James, and Peter, was witness of the raising of Jaeirus’s daughter, Mark 5:37; also of the transfiguration, Matthew 17:1 ff.; and of the agony in Gethsemane; he lay on the bosom of Jesus at the last supper; and was recognized by Peter as being the innermost in His personal confidence, John 13:23. To him was committed the charge of the mother of Jesus, by Himself when dying on the Cross, John 19:26-27.
7. And to this especial love of the Redeemer John appears to have corresponded in devoted affection and faithfulness. He fled, it is true, with the rest, at the dark hour of the capture of Jesus: but we find him, together with Peter, soon rallying again,—and from that time, John 18:15-16, even to the end, John 19:25 ff., an eye-witness of the sufferings of his Divine Master. In John 21 we find the same personal distinction bestowed on the beloved disciple by our Lord after His Resurrection.
8. In the Acts of the Apostles, John comes before us but very seldom, and always in connexion with and thrown into the background by Peter. See Acts 3:1 ff; Acts 8:14-25. The history leaves him at Jerusalem: where however he appears not to have been on Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem, Galatians 1:18 ff., A.D. 38–40 (see chronological table in Prolegg. to Acts, Vol. II.), for he states that he saw none of the Apostles save Peter and James. On his second visit, Acts 11:29-30, cir. A.D. 43 (see as above), we have no intimation whether John was there or not. If the journey to determine the question about circumcision, Acts 15:1, was identical with Paul’s third visit, Galatians 2:1 (which I have maintained in Prolegg. to Acts, Vol. II., note 1 to Chron. Table), then at that date (i.e. cir. A.D. 50) John was in Jerusalem. After this time, we lose sight of the Apostles, nor can we with any approach to certainty point out the period of their final dispersion. It took place probably some time between this council and Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem, Acts 21:18 (cir. A.D. 60), when we find only James resident there.
9. For the after-history of John, we are dependent on tradition. And here we have evidence more trustworthy than in the case of any other Apostle.
( α) It is related by Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus at the end of the second century,—in his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome on the keeping of Easter,—that John, whom he numbers among the great lights ( στοιχεῖα, see Eusebius, iii. 31, and Heinichen’s note) of Asia, died and was buried ( κεκοίμηται) in Ephesus.
( β) Irenæus also,—the scholar of Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of John,—relates that John remained in Ephesus till the times of Trajan (Adv. Hær. ii. 39, p. 148; iii. 1 and 3, pp. 174, 178, cited also by Eusebius, iii. 23). To the same effect testify Clement of Alexandria (Euseb. ibid.), Origen (Euseb. iii. 1), Eusebius (ibid.), and Jerome (De Viris Illustr. c. 9, vol. ii. p. 845).
.10. But assuming as a fact the long residence and death of the Apostle at Ephesus, we in vain seek any clue to guide us as to the time when, or the place whence, he came thither. The Asiatic Churches were founded by St. Paul, who made it a rule not to encroach on the field of labour of any other Apostle, Romans 15:20 :—who never, in his Epistles to the Asiatic Churches, makes any mention of nor sends any salutation to John:—who, in his parting speech to the Elders of the Ephesian Church at Miletus (Acts 20), certainly did not anticipate the coming of an Apostle among them. So much then we may set down as certain, that the arrival of John in Asia must have been after the death of Paul.
11. We may perhaps with some appearance of probability conjecture that the dangers which evidently beset the Asiatic Churches in Paul’s lifetime,—and to which Peter in his First Epistle, written to them, not indistinctly alludes (see 1 Peter 1:14; 1 Peter 2:1-2; 1 Peter 2:7-8; 1 Peter 2:12; 1 Peter 2:16 a(2). fr.),—had taken so serious a form after the removal of Paul their father in the faith, that John found it requisite to fix his residence and exercise apostolic authority among them. This is supposed by Lücke, Einl. p. 24, and Neander, Leitung u. Pflauzung der Kirche, 4th edition, p. 614.
12. But we are as far as ever, even if this conjecture be adopted, from arriving at any method of accounting for the interval between John’s leaving Jerusalem, and his coming to Asia Minor: a period, on any computation, of nearly six years, A.D. 58–64. It is not necessary, however, as Lücke also observes, to reject a tradition so satisfactorily grounded as that of John’s residence and death at Ephesus, on this account;—especially when we consider that we seem compelled to interpose some influence corresponding to that of John, between the state of the Asiatic Churches as shewn in the Pauline Epistles, and that in the time of Polycarp, who immediately followed the apostolic age. See Neander, Leitung u. Pflanzung, 4th edition, p. 615. I reserve the discussion of the other element of uncertainty in this matter,—the possible confusion of two persons named John, the Apostle and the Presbyter, for the Prolegomena to the Second Epistle of John, in Vol. IV.
13. I mention here,—reserving its discussion for the Prolegomena to the Apocalypse, Vol. IV.,—the tradition universally received in the early Church, which records that the Apostle John was exiled under Domitian to the island of Patmos. Assuming the Apocalypse to be his work, the fact of such an exile is established, see Revelation 1:9,—but the time left uncertain. But even those who do not ascribe the Apocalypse to him, relate this exile, e.g. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 20.
14. It is also related (Euseb. ibid.) that he returned under Nerva to Ephesus, and that his death (under Trajan, see above) took place (in what manner is uncertain, but probably not by martyrdom) in extreme old age. It would be out of place here to recount the other traditions, some of them highly interesting, which are extant. See one of them in note on 1 John 3:18, and the whole recounted and commented on in Stanley’s Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age, pp. 275–289.
SECTION II
ITS SOURCES
1. In several places the Author of this Gospel plainly declares or implies that he relates what he had seen and heard. See ch. John 1:14; John 13:23; John 18:15; John 19:26; John 20:2, and especially John 19:35(3). Also John 21:24.
2. And with this declaration the contents of the Gospel agree. Amidst the entire disregard of minute specifications of sequence or locality as a general rule, in almost every narrative we have undoubted marks of autoptic testimony.
3. The only question which arises on receiving this as the fact, has reference to the diversity of style observed in the discourses of our Lord as related by the three other Evangelists, and as related by John. In their more or less common report, a certain similarity of style is supposed to be observable throughout the parables and sayings of Jesus, which is wholly absent from them in John’s Gospel. Let us examine this matter more closely.
4. In order to form a satisfactory judgment on this point, it would be necessary to be in possession of some common matter reported by both. But such common matter, in any sufficient quantity for this purpose, we do not possess. No one discourse is reported by all four. Certain insulated sayings are so reported: e.g. compare John 2:19 with Matthew 26:61 and Mark 14:58; John 6:20 with Matthew 14:27 and Mark 6:50; John 12:7-8 with Matthew 26:10-11 and Mark 14:6-7; John 13:20 with Matthew 10:40 and Luke 10:16; John 13:21 with Matthew 26:21 and Mark 14:18; John 13:37-38 with Matthew 26:33 and (4); John 20:19 with Luke 24:36. Now in these common reports, amidst much variety in verbal and circumstantial detail, such as might have been expected from independent narrators, there is no such differences of style observable.
5. We have then the following remarkable phænomenon presented by the two classes of narrators: that the sayings of our Lord reported by the one are different from, and exclusive of those contained in the other. And this must very much modify our view of the subject in question.
6. It would be in the highest degree probable that our Lord would discourse mainly and usually on two great branches of divine truth: one of these being, the nature and moral requirements of that kingdom which He came to found among men, which would embrace the greater part of His discourses to the multitude,—His outer or popular sayings,—His parables and prophecies:—and the other, the deeper spiritual verities relating to his own Divine Person and Mission. Of these latter, there would be two subdivisions: one class of them would be spoken in the gracious condescension of love to His own disciples when conversing privately with them, and the other in the fire of holy zeal when contending against His bitter adversaries, the rulers of the Jews.
7. Now of the two greater classes just mentioned, let us enquire which would most naturally form the matter of the oral apostolic teaching to the Churches in the first age. Let it be remembered that that teaching was mostly elementary,—matter of catechization;—selected for the edification of those who were to be built up as Christian converts. Would it not unquestionably be the first? Granted, that some few of those deeper sayings (deeper, I mean, in their very form and primary reference) might occasionally find their place in the reports of longer discourses (see e.g. Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22), yet I cannot imagine the main stream of oral apostolic teaching to have been otherwise composed than as we find it: viz. of the popular discourses and parables of our Lord, to the exclusion for the most part of His inner teaching and deeper revelations respecting his own Divine Person. These, in case the Apostles had been suffered by Providence to carry on systematically their testimony to the Church, might have followed after: but certainly they would not be likely to form the first subject of their oral teaching.
8. But that they would dwell powerfully on their minds, and in proportion to their individual receptivity of the Spirit and Person of their Lord, is most evident. And this consideration, united with that of the very nature and purpose of the apostolic office, and with the promise specially recorded that the Spirit should bring to their minds all things which He had said to them, will fully account for there arising, late in the apostolic age, so copious and particular a report of these inner and personal discourses of our Lord.
9. That such a report should be characterized in some measure by the individual mind which has furnished it, was to be expected, on any view of spiritual guidance. But that this individuality has in any considerable degree modified the report, I think extremely improbable. Taking the circumstances into consideration, the relation of John to his Divine Master, the employment and station from which he was called, and the facts also which have been noticed respecting the sayings reported by all in common, I think it much more probable, that the character and diction of our Lord’s discourses entirely penetrated and assimilated the habits of thought of His beloved Apostle; so that in his first epistle he writes in the very tone and spirit of those discourses; and when reporting the sayings of his own former teacher the Baptist, he gives them, consistently with the deepest inner truth of narration (see note on ch. John 3:31), the forms and cadences so familiar and habitual to himself.